Opinion
Charity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations

Over the past few years, I’ve had canvassers coming to my home in Toronto on behalf of a wide range of non-profits – including hospitals and mental health and homeless support organizations. The fundraisers all “wear” a noticeable post secondary student vibe. That’s hardly news.
But curiously, no matter what they’re collecting for, every last one of them uses the exact same methodology. That is, they refuse to take a one-time donation, instead insisting I sign up for six (not seven, and definitely not five) monthly payments. They don’t want me donating online through the organization’s website (explaining that they wouldn’t get credit for that). They do expect me to enter my basic information on a high-end tablet they’re carrying. When that’s done, they’ll use their smartphones to make a call to a remote agent who would take my financial information.
I only completed the process once – for the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) in Toronto. But that was mostly because, at the time, they were in the middle of quite literally saving my granddaughter’s life. I couldn’t very well say no.
Because of the paranoia that comes with my background in IT systems administration, I generally don’t participate, explaining that I never share financial information on a call I didn’t initiate. At the same time, these campaigns are not fraudulent and, with the possible exception of UNICEF, they all represent legitimate organizations. Nevertheless, they all come with the clear fingerprints of a third-party, for-profit company. Which makes me curious.
After a little digging, it became clear that a company called Globalfaces Direct was the most likely employer of the face-to-face (F2F) canvassers I’m seeing. It’s also obvious that those canvassers are paid at least partially through revenue-based commissions.
Estimating how much of your donations are actually used for charitable work can be difficult. For once thing, in the case of SickKids, it’s not even clear which organization the money is going to. There at least three related non-profit accounts registered with CRA: The Hospital for Sick Children, The Hospital for Sick Children Foundation, and the SickKids Charitable Giving Fund.
But even where there isn’t such ambiguity we have only limited visibility into an organization’s finances. Covenant House, for instance, issued receipts for $26 million in donations for 2024, but there’s no way to know how much of that came through Globalfaces Direct F2F campaigns. And there’s certainly no public record indicating how much of that $26 million was spent on commissions and overhead. CRA filings for Covenant House do report fundraising costs of $9.4 million in 2024, which was 22 percent of their total spending and 32 percent of all donations.
It’s likely that their $9.4 million in fundraising costs includes Globalfaces Direct’s canvasser commissions and overhead costs. But those are only some of the costs – which likely include events, direct mail, and other in-house efforts. In fact, it’s not unreasonable to assume that only 20-30 percent of each dollar raised through F2F canvassing is actually spent on charity work.
From the perspective of the non-profit, hiring F2F companies can generate new sources of stable, long-term income that would have been otherwise unattainable. Especially if the F2F agreement specifies withholding a percentage of what’s collected rather than charging a flat fee, then a non-profit has nothing to lose. Why wouldn’t SickKids or Covenant House sign up for that?
Of course, a lot of that will depend on how you think about the numbers. Taken as a whole, an organization that spends just 32 percent of their donations on fundraising activities is well within CRA guidelines: “Fundraising is acceptable unless it is a purpose of the charity (a collateral non-charitable purpose).” But if we just looked at the money raised through a F2F campaign, that percentage would likely be a lot higher.
Similarly, CRA also expects that: “Fundraising is acceptable unless it delivers a more than incidental private benefit.” In other words, if a private company like Globalfaces Direct were to realize financial gain that’s “more than incidental”, it might fail to meet CRA guidelines.
Unfortunately, there’s no easy way for donors to assess the numbers on those terms. So regular people who prefer to direct as much of their donation as possible to the actual cause will generally be far better off donating through an institution’s website or, even better, through a single CRA-friendly aggregator like CanadaHelps.org.
But it would be nice if CRA reporting rules clearly broke those numbers down so we could judge for ourselves.
Addictions
Why B.C.’s new witnessed dosing guidelines are built to fail

Photo by Acceptable at English Wikipedia, ‘Two 1 mg pills of Hydromorphone, prescribed to me after surgery.’ [Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]
By Alexandra Keeler
B.C. released new witnessed dosing guidelines for safer supply opioids. Experts say they are vague, loose and toothless
This February, B.C pledged to reintroduce witnessed dosing to its controversial safer supply program.
Safer supply programs provide prescription opioids to people who use drugs. Witnessed dosing requires patients to consume those prescribed opioids under the supervision of a health-care professional, rather than taking their drugs offsite.
The province said it was reintroducing witnessed dosing to “prevent the diversion of prescribed opioids and hold bad actors accountable.”
But experts are saying the government’s interim guidelines, released April 29, are fundamentally flawed.
“These guidelines — just as any guidelines for safer supply — do not align with addiction medicine best practices, period,” said Dr. Leonara Regenstreif, a primary care physician specializing in substance use disorders. Regenstreif is a founding member of Addiction Medicine Canada, an advocacy group that represents 23 addiction specialists.
Addiction physician Dr. Michael Lester, who is also a founding member of the group, goes further.
“Tweaking a treatment protocol that should not have been implemented in the first place without prior adequate study is not much of an advancement,” he said.
Witnessed dosing
Initially, B.C.’s safer supply program was generally administered through witnessed dosing. But in 2020, to facilitate access amidst pandemic restrictions, the province moved to “take-home dosing,” allowing patients to take their prescription opioids offsite.
After pandemic restrictions were lifted, the province did not initially return to witnessed dosing. Rather, it did so only recently, after a bombshell government report alleged more than 60 B.C. pharmacies were boosting sales by encouraging patients to fill unnecessary opioid prescriptions. This incentivized patients to sell their medications on the black market.
B.C.’s interim guidelines, developed by the BC Centre on Substance Use at the government’s request, now require all new safer supply patients to begin with witnessed dosing.
But for existing patients, the guidelines say prescribers have discretion to determine whether to require witnessed dosing. The guidelines define an existing patient as someone who was dispensed prescription opioids within the past 30 days.
The guidelines say exemptions to witnessed dosing are permitted under “extraordinary circumstances,” where witnessed dosing could destabilize the patient or where a prescriber uses “best clinical judgment” and determines diversion risk is “very low.”
Holes
Clinicians say the guidelines are deliberately vague.
Regenstreif described them as “wordy, deliberately confusing.” They enable prescribers to carry on as before, she says.
Lester agrees. Prescribers would be in compliance with these guidelines even if “none of their patients are transferred to witnessed dosing,” he said.
In his view, the guidelines will fail to meet their goal of curbing diversion.
And without witnessed dosing, diversion is nearly impossible to detect. “A patient can take one dose a day and sell seven — and this would be impossible to detect through urine testing,” Lester said.
He also says the guidelines do not remove the incentive for patients to sell their drugs to others. He cites estimates from Addiction Medicine Canada that clients can earn up to $20,000 annually by selling part of their prescribed supply.
“[Prescribed safer supply] can function as a form of basic income — except that the community is being flooded with addictive and dangerous opioids,” Lester said.
Regenstreif warns that patients who had been diverting may now receive unnecessarily high doses. “Now you’re going to give people a high dose of opioids who don’t take opioids,” she said.
She also says the guidelines leave out important details on adjusting doses for patients who do shift from take-home to witnessed dosing.
“If a doctor followed [the guidelines] to the word, and the patient followed it to the word, the patient would go into withdrawal,” she said.
The guidelines assume patients will swallow their pills under supervision, but many crush and inject them instead, Regenstreif says. Because swallowing is less potent, a higher dose may be needed.
“None of that is accounted for in this document,” she said.
Survival strategy
Some harm reduction advocates oppose a return to witnessed dosing, saying it will deter people from accessing a regulated drug supply.
Some also view diversion as a life-saving practice.
Diversion is “a harm reduction practice rooted in mutual aid,” says a 2022 document developed by the National Safer Supply Community of Practice, a group of clinicians and harm reduction advocates.
The group supports take-home dosing as part of a broader strategy to improve access to safer supply medications. In their document, they say barriers to accessing safer supply programs necessitate diversion among people who use drugs — and that the benefits of diversion outweigh the risks.
However, the risks — and harms — of diversion are mounting.
People can quickly develop a tolerance to “safer” opioids and then transition to more dangerous substances. Some B.C. teenagers have said the prescription opioid Dilaudid was a stepping stone to them using fentanyl. In some cases, diversion of these drugs has led to fatal overdoses.
More recently, a Nanaimo man was sentenced to prison for running a highly organized drug operation that trafficked diverted safer supply opioids. He exchanged fentanyl and other illicit drugs for prescription pills obtained from participants in B.C.’s safer supply program.
Recovery
Lester, of Addiction Medicine Canada, believes clinical discretion has gone too far. He says take-home dosing should be eliminated.
“Best practices in addiction medicine assume physicians prescribing is based on sound and thorough research, and ensuring that their prescribing does not cause harm to the broader community, as well as the patient,” he said.
“[Safer supply] for opioids fails in both these regards.”
He also says safer supply should only be offered as a short-term bridge to patients being started on proven treatments like buprenorphine or methadone, which help reduce drug cravings and manage withdrawal symptoms.
B.C.’s witnessed dosing guidelines say prescribers can discuss such treatment options with patients. However, the guidelines remain neutral on whether safer supply is intended as a transitional step toward longer-term treatment.
Regenstreif says this neutrality undermines care.
“[M]ost patients I’ve seen with opioid use disorder don’t want to have [this disorder],” she said. “They would rather be able to set goals and do other things.”
Oversight gaps
Currently, about 3,900 people in B.C. participate in the safer supply program — down from 5,200 in March 2023.
The B.C. government has not provided data on how many have been transitioned to witnessed dosing. Investigative journalist Rob Shaw recently reported that these data do not exist.
“The government … confirmed recently they don’t have any mechanism to track which ‘safe supply’ participants are witnessed and which [are] not,” said Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, who has been a vocal critic of safer supply.
“Without a public report and accountability there can be no confidence.”
The BC Centre on Substance Use, which developed the interim guidelines, says it does not oversee policy decisions or data tracking. It referred Canadian Affairs’ questions to B.C.’s Ministry of Health, which has yet to clarify whether it will track and publish transition data. The ministry did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
B.C. has also not indicated when or whether it will release final guidelines.
Regenstreif says the flawed guidelines mean many people may be misinformed, discouraged or unsupported when trying to reduce their drug use and recover.
“We’re not listening to people with lived experience of recovery,” she said.
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Subscribe to Break The Needle
Opinion
Preston Manning: Three Wise Men from the East, Again

Many years ago, a Liberal Prime Minster, Lester Pearson, failed to secure a majority government after several tries and prepared to retire. But before doing so, he wanted to inject new blood into the upper echelons of his government, and particularly to bolster its base in Quebec where support for secession was increasing. So Mr. Pearson recruited three impressive Quebeckers into federal politics.
Becoming known as the Three Wise Men From the East, they were Jean Marchand, a strong champion of labor rights in Quebec; Gerard Pelletier, a prominent Quebec journalist and intellectual; and Pierre Elliot Trudeau, another Quebec intellectual, constitutional scholar, and champion of individual rights and Canadian federalism.
Trudeau of course is remembered nationally as Canada’s 15th Prime Minster. He was the successful proponent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a fierce opponent of Quebec secession. In Canada West, however, he is primarily remembered as the instigator of the National Energy Program (NEP), a federal intrusion into the natural resources sector which transferred billions of dollars’ worth of wealth from the western provinces and petroleum producers to the federal treasury and eastern consumers. More than any other federal initiative since WW II, the NEP laid the seeds of “western ‘alienation”.
Fast forward 60 years, and lo and behold, another Liberal Prime Minister leading another minority government needs to surround himself with strong lieutenants to bolster the ship of state as it sails into stormy seas. And who does he pick? Three Wise Men From The East, again.
This time it’s Marc-Andre Blanchard, formerly a senior executive with Quebec’s Caisse de Depot, appointed by Trudeau the Second as ambassador to the UN, and now selected by Mr. Carney to be his Chief of Staff; Michael Sabia, former CEO of Quebec Hydro and a deputy minister of finance in the Trudeau regime, now appointed Clerk of the Privy Council; and David Lametti, a less-than stellar minister of justice in the Trudeau administration, now appointed as Mr. Carney’s Principal Secretary.
Something obviously had to be done under Mr. Carney’s leadership to visibly improve the competence of the federal administration and only time will tell whether these latest appointments will do so. But many western Canadians will view these latest appointments with great trepidation for at least three reasons.
First, despite the ethnic, regional, and economic diversity of Canada, all three of these appointees are Quebecers with primarily public sector backgrounds and pre-conceived biases on the energy file. Thus the interests of Canada West – with its preference for private enterprise over public enterprise and strong support for the petroleum sector’s key role in sustaining and rejuvenating the national economy – are grossly underrepresented in Mr. Carney’s inner circle.
Secondly, Mr. Carney, in the recent federal election, went to great lengths to distance himself and the Liberal party from the Trudeau administration and its fixations with wok-ism, identity politics, and climate change extremism. But now that the election smoke has cleared, what is the composition of the Carney administration? One third of the current cabinet were Trudeau ministers just six months ago, singing off a very different song sheet. And every one of the Three Wise Men just appointed were once Trudeau appointees and loyalists. Can the leopard change its spots, and even if it could, is it still not a leopard?
Thirdly, and most worrisome of all, as columnist Lawrence Martin has observed, “They (the three appointees) are about as populist as you can’t get.” Or put in plainer English, Mr. Carney and his closest associates are about as elitest as you can get. They are therefore most likely to mis-understand and oppose populist sentiments and expressions at home and abroad in an era when democratic populism versus aristocratic elitism is becoming the defining political axis in much of the western world.
Why is this a worry, especially for western Canadians? Because populism – these bottom up surges of political energy which occur from time to time in freely democratic societies, usually in rection to top down policy prescriptions imposed by political elites – is as much a distinguishing feature of the politics of Canada West as nationalism is the distinguishing feature of Quebec politics. For example, the current increase in support for western secession is fueled in part by populist sentiments. Visibly strengthening the influence of political elites in Ottawa, insensitive or even opposed to western concerns and aspirations, will only further fuel that smoldering fire.
Of even greater concern – a concern which should be shared by all Canadians – is the inadequacy and unpreparedness of an elitist administration in Ottawa to deal with an American President brought to and sustained in office by the recent surge in American populism. Carney cannot approach or deal with Trump on issues such as tariff protectionism or defense the way he approaches and deals with the elitist leadership of the European Union. If he does so, relying heavily on the counsel of the Three Wise Men and other likeminded members of his elitist inner circle, all Canadians will suffer from the inadequacies of that approach.
There are Canadian leaders, in particular several western Premiers, who do understand American populism because populism is a prominent feature of their own political constituencies. Mr. Carney would do well to take counsel from them on dealing with a populist President. Perhaps in doing so he will also discover a healthy and broadening corrective to the increasingly Quebec-centric, Trudeau-tainted, and elitist character of his current inner circle.
Subscribe to Preston’s Substack.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
-
Business2 days ago
103 Conflicts and Counting Unprecedented Ethics Web of Prime Minister Mark Carney
-
illegal immigration1 day ago
ICE raids California pot farm, uncovers illegal aliens and child labor
-
Energy1 day ago
LNG Export Marks Beginning Of Canadian Energy Independence
-
Business23 hours ago
Carney government should apply lessons from 1990s in spending review
-
Entertainment23 hours ago
Study finds 99% of late-night TV guests in 2025 have been liberal
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy12 hours ago
Canada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys
-
Uncategorized12 hours ago
CNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda
-
Addictions4 hours ago
Why B.C.’s new witnessed dosing guidelines are built to fail